Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 15h

This arrest appears to be in direct violation of a temporary restraining order prohibiting DHS officers from arresting journalists. The officers here may well be subject to contempt of court. protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/u...

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants,' their officers, agents, assigns, and all
persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as "Federal Agents"), are temporarily
ENJOINED in this judicial district from:
a.
Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical
force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.

110 1.3K 3.1K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 16h

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1
And yet I
dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the
federal case law that applies to this dispute.
FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY
AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving
Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that
the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By
doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and
condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized
Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the
land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate
Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government
employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to
strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2
Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings.
The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8
L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty.
That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John
Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal
government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents
tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would
follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of
white supremacy.
Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong
and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually
sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man
was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United
States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.
Id. at 17.
This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward,
was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions.
In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903),
often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,”
3
the Court used that rationale to
justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes.
These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities
dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food.
Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and
helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.
Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L.
Ed. 228 (1886)).
Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that
same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be
both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805
(1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111
(2020).
3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was
less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes:
I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the
applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of
organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are.
Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to
equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the
conquered. Id. at 23.
In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope
used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages.
[W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become
agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of
humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel.
. . . .
But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states
or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law
of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held
together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or
government, beyond what is required in a savage state.
Id. at 23, 27-28.
This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030
(1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

3 180 530

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 17h

I think we need to be crystal clear about how Trump's creation of a nationwide police force—loyal only to him—threatens to create a feedback loop of lawlessness in which our constitutional right to dissent may vanish. slate.com/news-and-pol...

It is now beyond debate that one of Donald Trump’s key goals is the creation of a national police force that is loyal to him alone. To that end, the president has repeatedly federalized the National Guard—often over governors’ objections—and deployed troops to invade blue cities whose residents oppose his administration. He has also transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement into a kind of secret police that targets, with especially sadistic brutality, journalists, protesters, and others exercising their First Amendment rights. Trump’s multifaceted attack on the Constitution creates a feedback loop of lawlessness: He first erodes the structural limits on his authority, then exploits his newly unchecked power to trample the people’s freedom to dissent.

11 150 370

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

Lawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 21h

A law professor is probably writing an article right now explaining how Trump has the authority to fire the Nobel Committee.

19 58 430

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

DC grand juries stand alone🫡

4

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

Good piece, but all you REALLY need to know about the indictment is that it was personally secured by Lindsey Halligan, the wildly unqualified Trump lackey who was installed (illegally, it seems) for the lone purpose of bringing these bogus charges.

This will not result in a conviction.

Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social · 1d

Good time to read @mollyroberts.bsky.social:

“It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York.”

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/next...

Next Up: Letitia James
Molly Roberts
Monday, October 6, 2025, 9:59 AM
Share On: f X in $
It's hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey-until you see the one against the attorney general of New York.

19 130 400

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

Could the Supreme Court still apply different rules to a Democratic president? Of course. You don't need to remind me of that. But a lightning-fast blitz that repurposes Trump's new powers for good stands the best chance of standing up in court. Democrats need to start thinking about this right now.

52 190 1.5K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

This is why I think the next Democratic president needs to use the EXACT tools that SCOTUS has handed Trump. Don't leave room for any distinctions.

Impound funds for deportation. Give ICE the USAID treatment. Refuse to collect government-backed debt. Purge MAGA loyalists from the executive branch.

90 620 3.1K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

The best "defense" of SCOTUS' hypocrisy is that there's an asymmetry between how Democrats and Republicans wield executive power. Broadly—Dems want to give things (health care, asylum, foreign aid, loan relief, civil rights) while Republicans want to take things away. SCOTUS makes the latter easier.

9 160 1.2K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

I think the Supreme Court and its defenders try to deny this blatant bias toward Trump by highlighting distinctions between cases—oh, you don't understand, student loan forgiveness was illegal while impoundment is permissible because [reasons]. But the big picture tells an undeniably damning story.

15 180 1.5K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

When the Supreme Court struck down Biden's policies, it was tempting to think: "At least these limits on executive authority will bind Trump if he comes back into office." But no—the court's skepticism of executive power vanished on Jan. 20, 2025. This dynamic is obvious to anyone paying attention!

17 360 2.2K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 1d

It is pretty galling that the Supreme Court spent four years telling Biden "you can't do that without Congress" then allowed Trump to seize a once-unthinkable amount of power from Congress within nine months and concentrate law-making authority almost entirely in the executive branch.

220 2.6K 9.7K

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 2d

i desperately want everyone involved in the destruction of USAID to have to, st the very least, answer to the american people for the suffering and misery they have caused apnews.com/article/myan...

Starving children screaming for food as US aid cuts unleash devastation and death across Myanmar

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly said “no one has died" because of his government’s decision to gut its foreign aid program.

apnews.com

280 5.2K 14K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 3d

KBJ’s blunt question today about the Supreme Court’s culture war hypocrisy kind of floored me, because it’s the kind of meta-criticism that we aren’t used to hearing from the justices.

It’s the second day of the term, and things are that dire already. slate.com/news-and-pol...

With One Damning Question, Ketanji Brown Jackson Defined the Supreme Court’s New Term

The justice stripped the veneer of constitutional principle from the court’s latest blatant culture war.

slate.com

7 150 450

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 3d

Going on MSNBC shortly to talk about the wretched oral arguments in today's conversion therapy case at the Supreme Court.

4 26 210

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 4d

Back in the land of reality, here's what one of the Black people whose home was smashed into during the apartment raid last week said about his Venezuelan neighbors: "They were cool people."

Mr. Jones, a U.S. citizen, was dragged out in handcuffs and held outside for hours.

Jones, who lives on the fourth floor, said most of his neighbors were Venezuelan and often took turns cleaning the hallway because the property owners did little to maintain it.

“They were cool people,” Jones said as he looked into his next door neighbor’s unit. “They didn’t speak a lick of English, but we used translator apps to talk to each other.”

Jones wondered what would happen to his neighbor’s young children.

120 840 2.6K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 4d

Will be discussing the fresh hell of a new Supreme Court term on MSNBC shortly.

6 32 300

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 4d

I'm sorry but how does this person have standing to challenge Colorado's ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy when she has explicitly disclaimed any desire to change a patient's sexual orientation or gender identity? How is this a real case? slate.com/news-and-pol...

The Supreme Court’s First Blockbuster Case This Term Looks Pretty Fake

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that seeks to undo a major triumph of the LGBTQ+ movement.

slate.com

45 280 980

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

Lawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 4d

The new Supreme Court term starts today, meaning that -- in a novel twist -- the justices will hear oral arguments in some cases before they issue rulings that actually explain what they are doing.

66 670 3.9K

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 4d

perhaps the biggest story TFPever ran was a catastrophically shoddy argument that George Floyd ackshully died of an overdose. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that the piece was simply wrong, Weiss didn’t take it down, she asked her critic, @radleybalko.bsky.social, to come on a podcast.

max tani @maxtani.bsky.social · 4d

David Ellison’s note to staff on Paramount’s acquisition of the Free Press

180 2.1K 9.4K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 4d

The Supreme Court also rejected another effort to block a copper mine on an Apache sacred site. Once again, Justice Gorsuch dissented. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

APACHE STRONGHOLD V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Gorsuch would
grant the petition for rehearing. Justice Alito took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition.

3 24 93

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 4d

The Supreme Court just denied Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal with no noted dissents: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

39 170 890

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 5d

The very first statute authorizing domestic use of the military during domestic emergencies, enacted in 1792 by a Congress full of the same folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution, expressly provided for judicial review in certain circumstances *before* the President could even send troops.

270 3.3K 11K

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 5d

When President AOC federalizes the National Guard in 2029 to protect abortion clinics, Ilan is going to magically discover an English treatise written in 1610 that proves Matthew Kacsmaryk can issue a nationwide injunction against her.

Pat Sobkowski @patsobkowski.com · 6d

We don’t have to carry water for dictators. Just my thought.

26 290 2.1K

Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 5d

Last week, I wrote about the impact of the Alliance Defending Freedom's aggressive PR campaigns humanizing its anti-LGBTQ clients, so I appreciate the New York Times illustrating my point by immediately running a credulous, soft-focus profile of an anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom client

The Story of This Supreme Court Term Is Already On YouTube

How conservative activists are building a shared cultural understanding about who deserves the law’s protections, and who does not.

ballsandstrikes.org

6 67 210